Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This case is before us on a request for reconsideration of
41 FLRA 73 (1991) filed by the Agency under section 2424.17 of
our Rules and Regulations. The Union did not file an
opposition to the Agency's request. Because the Agency fails
to establish extraordinary circumstances that would warrant
reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the request.

II. The Decision in 41 FLRA 73

In 41 FLRA 73, we found that Proposals 1 through 4, which
were offered in response to an Agency announcement of a
proposed furlough for fiscal year 1991, were negotiable. We
concluded that Proposal 5, which provided that employees could
choose to be furloughed during fiscal year 1991 on specified
dates during the year, was moot because it expressly concerned
only the proposed fiscal year 1991 furlough. We rejected, as
relevant here, the Agency's claim that Proposals 1-4 were moot
because the proposed furlough to which the proposals were
addressed never occurred. We concluded that the Union's
assertion that Proposals 1-4 were not limited to the
implementation of the Agency's proposed fiscal year 1991
furlough was consistent with the plain wording of the proposals
and, therefore, Proposals 1-4 were not moot.

III. The Agency's Request for Reconsideration

The Agency objects only to the portion of our decision in
41 FLRA 73 finding that Proposals 1-4 are not moot. The Agency
argues that the proposals were offered in the context of the
proposed fiscal year 1991 furlough and that "negotiations with
the [U]nion with respect to the furlough were intended solely
to address the critical situation that threatened its employees
at the time, not to prospective furlough policy." Request for
Reconsideration at 4. The Agency contends further that it was
"inappropriate" for us to determine the negotiability of
Proposals 1-4 "because the situation surrounding a subsequently
arising furlough may not concern the same or similar
circumstances." Id. The Agency concludes that "[b]ecause the
circumstances involving the [U]nion's furlough proposals are
unique to the circumstances under which they arose," our
decision that Proposals 1-4 are not moot should be
reconsidered. Id. at 5.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations permits a
party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to move
for reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. The Agency
fails to establish "extraordinary circumstances" within the
meaning of section 2424.17.

The arguments provided by the Agency in support of its
request for reconsideration constitute nothing more than
disagreement with our decision in 41 FLRA 73 and an attempt to
relitigate the merits of our conclusion that Proposals 1-4 are
not moot. As such, these arguments do not constitute
extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of our
decision, and we will deny the request. See, for example, U.S.
Department of the Army, New Cumberland Army Depot, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania and American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 2004, 40 FLRA 1032 (1991).